VINOD KUMAR JAIN Vs. TULSABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the claim is only for the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna. The findings, that the driver of the car which dashed against the scooter carrying the appellant was driving negligently and rashly and that the appellant sustained multiple fractures in his leg consequent upon that accident, have not been challenged. It has also not been disputed before me that as a result of that accident, the appellant's leg has been shortened by about 1/2" and that at the time of the accident, the appellant was a bachelor. It is also not disputed that at the relevant time, the car was insured with M/s. United India General Insurance Corporation, Jabalpur.

(2.) THE Claims Tribunal awarded in all Rs. 18,200 as compensation payable to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in that accident. It appears that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal has apportioned this liability half and half between the owner and the insurer. The appellant, therefore, contends in this appeal that this action of splitting up the liability is not correct. The argument is that the Claims Tribunal has assigned no legal basis to reduce the liability of the insurer. In my opinion, this submission is sound and must be given effect to. It is true that Section 110d of the Act requires the Claims Tribunal that while making the award, it shall also specify the liabilities of the insurer. That, however, does not give the Tribunal an unfettered jurisdiction to reduce the liability of the insurer. In the present case, without assigning any reason whatever, the Claims Tribunal has reduced that liability by 50%. That finding, therefore, has to be set aside. Setting aside that finding, I hold that the insurer (respondent No. 5) is liable for the entire claim along with the owner of the vehicle. Their liability is joint and several.

(3.) IT was next argued that the award of general damages on account of pain and suffering and also on account of permanent disability is rather low. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000 for pain and suffering and Rs. 6,000 for permanent disability and on account of shortening of the leg. After going through the award and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the award is rather low. It is in evidence that at the first instance, the appellant was required to be treated for about 18 months and that during all this period he experienced severe pain in the wounds. This suffering continued and is still continuing today. A sum of Rs. 2,000 on this count appears to be rather insufficient. In my opinion, the appellant must be awarded Rs. 3,000 on this count. I am, however, of the opinion that the amount awarded on account of permanent disability is just and calls for no increase.